thomaswoodfandomcom-20200216-history
Talk:Thomas Wood Wiki Guidelines
This page is meant for all users. Users can propose new guidelines for both users and administrators alike. Voting will then be undertaken. If one administrator opposes the proposal, the two-thirds majority of the other two voting administrators may pass the proposal. Amendments can be proposed by users and administrators, but only the latter can vote on their adoption and the passage of the rule proposal they pertain to. It is a duty of TWR Wiki Administrators to watch this page and weigh in and vote on all proposals. Rule Proposals 'User page protection' Only edit your user page.Ivan Kakooza 20:01, October 23, 2011 (UTC) :Oppose: Protecting userpages would not be able to allow users to edit their own pages whilst stopping others from doing the same. Administrators would be the only one able to edit regardless. They'd have to constantly change protection levels and the coordination for that would be ridiculous. OrigamiAirEnforcer 03:13, December 4, 2011 (UTC) :Oppose: Same reason stated above :P Jamesis5 Toot! Toot! 03:19, December 4, 2011 (UTC)Jamesis5 ::Result: '''The proposal failed in voting and was not ratified. '''Category Proposal I, with encouragement from OrigamiAirEnforcer, am now proposing a new guideline for adding new categories to pages. My proposal is that new categories should only be created if it actually is needed. Categories like wheel configuration and engines' basis should not be allowed, it would only cause trouble. Categories that should be allowed are, for example, things like "Engines that have been Re-Issued" or "Troublesome Engines." The first one would be for engines that have had re-issue models of them, the second one is for engines that frequently cause trouble i.e. Diesel, Diesel 10, Troublesome Trucks. Mr.Conductor 04:10, December 10, 2011 (UTC) Support, with amendments: I agree that wheel configuration and engine basis are unnecessary categories, but I also believe 'Troublemakers" and "Reissued" categories are not terribly fitting either. For other administrators note: there is no conflict of interest, my encouragement was solely that Mr. Conductor exercise his right to propose new guidelines. OrigamiAirEnforcer 04:42, December 10, 2011 (UTC) Oppose: With the vote hung and no amendments to speak of proposed, I must oppose the proposal as it is written. OrigamiAirEnforcer 02:13, December 12, 2011 (UTC) Support:' '''However, I do not feel "Troublesome Engines" is necessary. I do, however, feel "Reissued" and "Discontinued" may be appropriate. Jamesis5 Toot! Toot! 15:33, December 10, 2011 (UTC)Jamesis5 '''Oppose', I think "Engines that have been Re-issued" and "Troublesome Engines", aren't quite necessary categories, for reasons mentioned above. FDMG, 8:48 P.M. Approx. FlyingDuckManGenesis 01:48, December 12, 2011 (UTC) Result: '''The proposal failed in voting and was not ratified. '''Talk Page Retention/Archives I propose that it become a guideline that all conversations on talk pages remain and not be expunged from the page, but at most strikenthrough unless these exchanges are in violation of other guidelines. I also propose that after every 15 messages (that is, subject sections) talk pages be archived. I will recuse myself from voting on this having been the one to propose it. The other administrators should vote on this soon. OrigamiAirEnforcer 01:24, December 12, 2011 (UTC) Support. I don't have too much to say, so let's just say I agree with the above. FDMG, 8:29 P.M. Approx. FlyingDuckManGenesis 01:29, December 12, 2011 (UTC) Support: '''Sounds good to me! Jamesis5 Toot! Toot! 02:02, December 12, 2011 (UTC)Jamesis5 '''Result: The proposal passed in voting and has been ratified. Strike Proposal I have obtained a marvellous idea from the Thomas and Friends wiki. I propose that we employ a strike system to stop vandalism. Instead of just blocking someone, give that person a "strike." Three strikes will be given to that person, and after that - a block if that person continues to vandalize or spam. Mr.Conductor 00:16, December 13, 2011 (UTC) Support, with amendments: I believe this is a good idea, but right now my vote is hung on the provisions of this proposal. These strikes should be based on severity of the infraction. If we do adopt this with such a severity basis amendment, I would also wish for this to be made very clear and not vague or open to interpretation. If such amendments are not included and passed, I will have to change my vote to "Opposed". OrigamiAirEnforcer 01:58, December 13, 2011 (UTC) Oppose: I believe one warning is sufficent. However, if it is a server violation (i.e. uploading pornographic or violent images, racial slurrs, etc.) I believe a block is needed, however, the user in question may still edit his talk page so he could discuss the violation with the mods. Jamesis5 Toot! Toot! 02:44, December 14, 2011 (UTC)Jamesis5 Support, with amendments, I think strikes are necessary, but only against spammers that upload pornographic or violent images and/or racial slurs. If it's something minor, like inaccurate information on a certain engine, I think just a warning will do. FDMG, 8:58 P.M. Approx. FlyingDuckManGenesis 01:58, December 16, 2011 (UTC) Blocked User Appeal Amendment Proposal As it is currently, there is only a de facto rule among administrators around the wiki maintaining that blocked users be allowed to use their talk pages for appeals while blocked. I believe it ought to be a point incorporated into the wiki guidelines that, "so long as there are no further infractions while blocked by a blocked user, they may have access to their talk pages." As before, I will recuse myself from voting on this having been the one to propose it. The other administrators should vote on this soon. OrigamiAirEnforcer 01:44, December 15, 2011 (UTC) Support: I agree with this proposal. If a user begins to "curse up a storm" on their talk page after they have been blocked, I believe they should lose access to their talk page as well. Jamesis5 Toot! Toot! 21:02, December 16, 2011 (UTC)Jamesis5